Shamsunder S/O Bulakhidasji ... vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6930 Bom

                                           1                    WP2905-09.odt         



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                             
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                     
                             Writ Petition No.2905/2009
                                          ...




                                                    
    Shamsunder s/o Bulakhidasji Taori,
    Aged about 57 years, Occu: Retired,
    R/o Sita Niwas, Deoli, Dist. Wardha.            ..             PETITIONER




                                               
                              ig   .. Versus ..

    1. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
       through its Chairman and Managing
                            
       Director, 87, M.G. Road, Fort,
       Mumbai.

    2. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
       through its Chief Regional Manager,
      


       Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, 4th Floor,
       High Land Rise, Seminary Hills,
   



       Nagpur.

    3. The Government of India,
       Ministry of Finance (Department of





       Financial Services, Insurance
       Division), New Delhi.              ..                    RESPONDENTS


    Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.





    Mr. A.J. Pophaly, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

                                   ....


                  CORAM :               B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

                  DATED :               December 05, 2016.



    ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )




                                            2                      WP2905-09.odt         




                                                                               
    1.            Rule      is     heard    by   consent    of    learned         counsel

    appearing for the parties.




                                                       

2. The facts in the present case are identical with the

facts in Writ Petition No. 2907/2009 decided by the Division

Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated

17.11.2016.

3. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly

concedes that insofar as prayer clauses (iii-A) and (v) are

concerned, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the

petitioner cannot press those prayer clauses into service. The

petition is, therefore, rejected insofar as prayer clauses (iii-A)

and (v) are concerned.

4. The petitioner restricts his claim in the petition

against the impugned recovery. It is contended that the

petitioner was superannuated on 18.06.2007 and the recovery

was made on 4.2.2008 and that too without issuing any notice.

In Writ Petition No. 2907/2009 also the recovery was made

without issuing any show cause notice.

3 WP2905-09.odt

5. In that view of the matter, we quash and set aside the

impugned recovery from the petitioner. We make it clear that

the respondents would be at liberty to take fresh action against

the petitioner after following the due procedure as prescribed

in law. The respondents shall complete the proceedings within

a period of three months from today, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(V.M. Deshpande, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

...

halwai/p.s.